masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:Honeybunch
Hi, welcome to Mass Effect Wiki! Thanks for your edit to the Squad page. Be sure to check out our Style Guide and Community Guidelines to help you get started, and please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Lancer1289 (Talk) 23:12, March 31, 2011 Squad Article Edits So I would like to know when an overhaul of that article was discussed because I cannot remember a conversation on that matter? Major changes like that to an article need to be discussed before hand before major changes to the article are implemented. This is for obvious reasons in the fact that the community would more than likely like to give input on the matter and some may even disagree with the proposal. The talk page for the article would be the best place for that discussion, but again, major changes like that need to be discussed. Lancer1289 23:25, March 31, 2011 (UTC) :I'm sorry for not bringing it up on the talk page first. Although I'm new to the Mass Effect Wiki, I have made occasional contributions to Wikipedia and some other wikis within the Wikia network. I do make a point of bringing up major changes on the talk page before implementing them. However, I do not see the edit as a major change. Given that the Characters article contained exactly the same information but formatted a different way, I perceived it as more of a formatting standardization than a major change. :Moreover, the article was not much more than a stub which had not been edited in over half a year. Usually when I post something on a talk page for an article with so little activity, no one responds, or is concerned enough about the article to be bothered by any changes I might make. It seems like that would not have been the case here, given your prompt response to the changes I did make, and you have my apologies for my incorrect assumption. :In any case, the basic thought behind my edit was not about making a major change in the article, but rather about updating a rather neglected article to match the formatting agreed upon for a much more popular article. Since that formatting for essentially identical content had been the end result of a lengthy and active discussion in another article, I felt it made sense to mimic that formatting in this article, where I thought I was unlikely to get any discussion at all even if I posted on the talk page. However, obviously I was wrong about that. In the future, I will be more careful to bring up any substantive changes I am considering on an article's talk page before applying them to the article itself. I will do that now for the Squad article.--Honeybunch 23:56, March 31, 2011 (UTC) ::You may not see it as a major change, but considering you did change the formatting, presentation, content, and a few other things about the article, so yes that would classify as a very major change. Formatting from one article doesn’t always carry over from one to the next and just because one article looks one way, is not a justification or a reason to change another article to match it as it might have different content, or cover the same content in a different way. ::Things here don't work like things on Wikipedia as we have learned here time and time again. I'm sure I can probably find an article that hadn’t been edited for at least six months, and possibly more. Just because something hasn't been edited, does not in the slightest mean that it is neglected as there could be any number of reasons why it hasn't been edited. Examples include nothing new to add, nothing more to add, nothing about the content article has changed in (insert time period here) among other reasons. ::As to your point about it being a stub, some articles aren't very long for a reason, because there isn't much to say about the particular person/subject/whatever it is about. Stub is an extremely subjective term when describing an article and we rarely use article size as a determination of whether or not it is a stub. Is an article a stub if there is nothing more that can be said about what it is about? The answer here is no as the phrase goes "what else is there to say". To that end, I'm positive I can find a non-stub article that is shorter, if not much shorter, than that one. ::Talk pages here do tend to get responses to at the very least by the admins, and usually other senior editors as we do use talk pages for what they are supposed to be about, updating articles, discussing changes to them, and whatnot. If you put something on a talk page, chances are it will get responded to at some point, maybe not right away, but it will be attended to, especially if it is about article changes. Lancer1289 00:08, April 1, 2011 (UTC) :::Fair enough. I will make sure to be more communicative about changes I am considering in the future, except in cases where they are both minor and clearly an improvement. Not going to post on the talk page for every grammar error I notice, but I'll definitely tread more lightly. I'm also glad to hear that talk pages actually get responded to for less active articles, because that has not generally been my experience on either the Wikia Wikis or Wikipedia. Having comments on talk pages actually get replied to will be a refreshing change. :::Anyhow, thanks for your time. Sorry for being a bit of a bother. --Honeybunch 00:24, April 1, 2011 (UTC) ::::It's just major edits that need to be discussed. Minor changes like undoing vandalism, fixing spelling (while minding the site's Spelling policy), grammar edits, adding new information, or anything that is really maintenance, obviously doesn't require discussion as that should get done anyway. Talk pages here tend to get responded to in a somewhat timely manner, sometimes a few hours will pass, but usually they will get responded to. As to being a bother, don't worry about it, as an admin, this is my job after all. [[User:Lancer1289|Lancer1289 00:30, April 1, 2011 (UTC)